beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as its annual 5% from December 11, 2006 to October 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 10, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70,000,000 to the Han Bank account, Han Bank account, Inc., under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. On July 11, 2006, the Defendant prepared and delivered a cash loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff on the same day (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
C. On November 22, 2006, the Defendant issued a promissory note No. 70,000 won at par value, and the date of issuance on November 22, 2006, each of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, and a promissory note No. 148 with respect to the said Promissory note No. 148, a notary public made and issued a notarized deed to the effect that the said promissory note No. 148 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,750,000 each five times between July 14, 2006 and December 15, 2006 (i.e., KRW 70,000,000 x 2.5%) as interest rate of 2.5% per month on the instant loan, and thereafter, did not pay the principal and interest on the instant loan thereafter.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 evidence, Eul's witness C's partial testimony, the purport of whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In light of the loan certificate of this case and the details of the subsequent repayment, etc. as above determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 70,00,000 to the Defendant on July 11, 2006 as interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month, and without fixing the due date, the Plaintiff was paid the interest for five months from July 11, 2006 to December 10, 2006, and the interest or principal was not paid thereafter. Thus, the Defendant was not able to receive interest or principal from the Plaintiff. As such, from December 111, 2006 to October 26, 2016, it is clear that the service date of the complaint of this case was the service date of the complaint of this case.